Other court cases involving the Equal Access Act (EAA):
- Truth v. Kent School District
- A school district in Washington had a requirement that student clubs had to submit their club proposals to an Associated Student Body (ASB) council for approval. Students had tried for several years to start a Bible club and had submitted three proposals to the council, but were denied each time. Reason given for denial included the club's plan to use the PA system and decorate the school in a religious theme, the club's name "Truth," and restrictions for those who could vote based on profession of belief in the Bible and Jesus Christ. After the second denial, the club sued the school district and officials in a federal district court. After the lawsuit was filed, the ASB council denied the club's third application. The court awarded a pretrial judgement to the district based on the restrictions to membership in the club's charter. The club appealed to the Ninth Circuit which found that there were not any First Amendment or Equal Protection violations in the district's actions. Several months later the Ninth Circuit withdrew the decision it had made and required the district court to reconsider several of the claims made in the case. The Ninth Circuit pointed out that several of the clubs the school district allowed had selective membership criteria. The Court stated that in the EAA Congress had intended to prohibit only content based restrictions on religious groups. The Ninth Circuit stated that so long as the club argued that club allowed waivers to other groups, remained an issue of fact to consider. Therefore the Court reversed its decision and remanded it back to the district court to review the issue.
- Straights and Gays for Equality v. Osseo Area Schools-Dist. No. 279
- A school district in Minnesota recognized a number of student groups that were considered "curricular" and therefore related to school curriculum and school sponsored. Such groups could use the school PA system and other school facilities and could be included in fundraisers, field trips, and the yearbook. "Non-curricular" groups could not use school facilities, fundraise or take school sponsored field trips. The district classified a gay tolerance organization as a "non-curricular" club and therefore denied use of facilities, fundraising, and field trips. The gay tolerance organization argued that the district violated the EAA by denying it access to the same resources afforded other non-curricular groups including cheerleading and synchronized swimming. A preliminary order was granted by a federal district court in favor of the organization with the finding that, like the tolerance group, synchronized swimming and cheerleading were non-curricular. The school district appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, where it argued that because swimming and cheerleading were related to physical education and therefore curriculum based. The Court stated that the EAA prohibited secondary schools from discriminating against students on the basis of speech when the school has a "limited open forum." It was also stated by the Court that the EAA is put into effect even when there is only one non-curriculum group. The Court stated that a curriculum related group had to relate directly to the curriculum and agreed with the tolerance group that based on that definition neither the synchronized swimming or cheerleading groups were curriculum related because the school offered no courses for those activities. Under this reasoning the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals stated that the tolerance group had the same standing as the swimming and cheerleading clubs and could therefore use the same resources allowed for the clubs. With this decision the district court's decision was affirmed and the preliminary order was upheld. The case was sent back to the district court where a permanent order was issued stated that the gay tolerance group was to have access to the same meetings, communications, and other school facilities as groups that were recognized as curriculum based. The school district appealed the case again to the Eighth Circuit which again stated that the district had violated the EAA and that the district court had appropriately awarded the permanent order to the tolerance club. The judgement was therefore affirmed by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
- Donovan v. Punxsutawney Area School Board
- A district in Pennsylvania created an "activity" period after student's homeroom and before the first class of the day. The district stated that during this time students could participate in club meetings, go to a study hall, attend student activities, or relax - as long as they remained on the school premises. The district recognized three student groups as being "curriculum related" and these groups were allowed to meet during this activity period. The three groups were also allowed to post signs and use the school's PA system for announcements. A student Bible club was not allowed to meet during this time, however. A student, feeling that her rights under the EAA and First Amendment speech rights had been infringed upon, sued the school district in federal court. The court found that the activity period was not "non-instructional time" under the EAA and denied her request for a preliminary order. The student then appealed to the Third Circuit Court. The Court explained that a "limited open forum" was created because the school allowed at least one non-curricular related student group to meet on the school grounds during non-instructional time. The Court stated that the district had appointed this activity period as non-instructional time by their establishment of the period, even though it was neither before or after regular school hours. The Court further rejected the interpretation of the EAA the district had followed to "evade" the designation of "limited open forum" on the activity period by saying that the time counted toward student instruction. According to the Court, the district had violated the EEA by not allowing the Bible club to meet during the activity period. The court also stated that the district's actions could not be justified as trying to avoid a violation of the Establishment Clause. The Court then reversed the order and remanded the case to determine attorney's fees and damages.
- A district in Pennsylvania created an "activity" period after student's homeroom and before the first class of the day. The district stated that during this time students could participate in club meetings, go to a study hall, attend student activities, or relax - as long as they remained on the school premises. The district recognized three student groups as being "curriculum related" and these groups were allowed to meet during this activity period. The three groups were also allowed to post signs and use the school's PA system for announcements. A student Bible club was not allowed to meet during this time, however. A student, feeling that her rights under the EAA and First Amendment speech rights had been infringed upon, sued the school district in federal court. The court found that the activity period was not "non-instructional time" under the EAA and denied her request for a preliminary order. The student then appealed to the Third Circuit Court. The Court explained that a "limited open forum" was created because the school allowed at least one non-curricular related student group to meet on the school grounds during non-instructional time. The Court stated that the district had appointed this activity period as non-instructional time by their establishment of the period, even though it was neither before or after regular school hours. The Court further rejected the interpretation of the EAA the district had followed to "evade" the designation of "limited open forum" on the activity period by saying that the time counted toward student instruction. According to the Court, the district had violated the EEA by not allowing the Bible club to meet during the activity period. The court also stated that the district's actions could not be justified as trying to avoid a violation of the Establishment Clause. The Court then reversed the order and remanded the case to determine attorney's fees and damages.
- Gernetzke v. Kenosha Unified School Dist. No. 1
- A school in Wisconsin invited all of its student groups to paint murals in a school hallway. The school's Bible club submitted a design that included a heart, two doves, and open Bible with the text of John 3:16, and a large cross. The design was approved by the principal except for the cross, which he felt might create a violation of the Establishment Clause and therefore require him to also approve satanic or neo-Nazi materials from white supremacist groups that were active in the school. The Bible club's mural was defaced with a witchcraft symbol and a group of white supremacist petitioned unsuccessfully to create a mural with a swastika symbol. The principal of the school also forbade the use of the name of a brand of beer in another mural proposal. Members of the Bible club sued the district, principal, and district superintendent in a federal district court. The court sided with the district and its administrators and the club appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court. The Court stated that the EAA disallows schools from denying equal access to student groups based on the content of speech at group meetings. However, the Court found that the principal did not discriminate in this case because he was acting under the belief that the depiction of a cross could result in a lawsuit or student confrontations. To support this, the Court pointed to the fact that he also forbade the use of a swastika and a beer brand and therefore was not discriminating, but acting reasonably to prevent disruptions in his school. In addition, his act of forbidding the cross depiction was covered by the EAA, which is not meant to be construed to limit the power of school leaders to maintain discipline and order on school grounds.